English Prefixes - Native Vs. Non-native (neo-classical) Prefixing

Native Vs. Non-native (neo-classical) Prefixing

Several English words are easily analyzed as a combination of a dependent affix and an independent base, such as in the words boy-hood or un-just. Following Marchand (1969), these types of words are referred to as words formed by native word-formation processes.

Other words in English (and also in French and German) are formed by foreign word-formation processes, particularly Greek and Latin word-formation processes. These word types are often known as neo-classical (or neo-Latin) words and are often found in academic learned vocabulary domains (such as in science fields). Words of this nature are borrowed from either Greek or Latin or have been newly coined based upon Greek and Latin word-formation processes. It is possible to detect varying degrees of foreignness.

Neo-classical prefixes are often excluded from analyses of English derivation on the grounds that they are not analyzable according to an English basis. Thus, anglicized neo-classical English words such as deceive are not analyzed as being composed of a prefix de- and a bound base -ceive but are rather analyzed as being composed of a single morpheme (although the Latin sources of these English words are, of course, analyzed as such as Latin words in the Latin language). However, not all foreign words are unanalyzable according to an English basis: some foreign elements have become a part of productive English word-formation processes. An example of such a now native English prefix is co- as in co-worker, which is ultimately derived from the Latin prefix com- (with its allomorphs co-, con-, col-, and cor-).